D&D 5E What official material is considered problematic to the point where it is not balanced and presents a problem?

[Greenstone.Walker]

Armor and how it functions -may as well have 2 armor types in the game- studded leather and plate.

Agreed. Additionally, you get these at 4th level or earlier, then never change them.
I'd like to see the bl/pr/sl/mi differentiation from earlier versions.

A level 11 fighter for example uses a greatsword and a ranged encounter happens. He puts his sword away has to attack and the next round. The next round he pulls out a spear or javelin and throws it only making one attack because you can only draw 1 weapon a turn.

A dual wielder with the fear walks around with 1 weapon drawn. If he needs to draw another sword they have that options or they can put the sword away and draw a bow and immediately have 3 attacks with it. Over the 2 rounds the dex based fighter gets 6 attacks vs the strength based fighters 1 attack.

It's not quite as bad as that. Both of the fighters have to spend their first round's action putting a weapon away (sheathing it safely takes an Action), so the javelin fighter gets 1 attack in 2 rounds where the bow fighter gets 3. If they choose to just drop the sword on the ground then the numbers are 2 and 6.

One of the tropes of thrown weapons is the quick-draw. In movies, fighters often pull throwing knives from bandoleers and throw them in the same action. Maybe we should just rule "throwing a weapon includes drawing it, but only if it can be easily drawn (a dagger or dart, not a hand axe)"? If the fighter has 3 javelins stuck in the ground next to them, or in a quiver, or being wrangled by a spear-carrier, then they should be able to use all of their Extra Attacks.

 

[Prism]

Agreed. Additionally, you get these at 4th level or earlier, then never change them.
I'd like to see the bl/pr/sl/mi differentiation from earlier versions.

Studded leather maybe (AC is still not typically at max due to lower DEX), but the DM chooses to give out enough money to afford plate mail by 4th (or lets a suit be found) then they are partly to blame for the static nature of AC. Using standard treasure I would imagine 7th or 8th to be a more typical time to get your first suit.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Studded leather maybe (AC is still not typically at max due to lower DEX), but the DM chooses to give out enough money to afford plate mail by 4th (or lets a suit be found) then they are partly to blame for the static nature of AC. Using standard treasure I would imagine 7th or 8th to be a more typical time to get your first suit.

In the the two 5E games I gmed and in the one I played in, the entire party pooled their treasure to get the main fighter into plate armour at level 4, seeing the value in having a heavily armoured tank.

 

[Harzel]

The short definition of role-playing is "making decisions based on what your character would do". The short definition of meta-gaming is "making decisions based on information that your character does not have, such as the fact that it's a game".

They are directly antithetical. If you are meta-gaming, then you are definitively and objectively not role-playing while you do so. In the context of a role-playing game, meta-gaming is bad. It's in the Ten Commandments of RPGs - Thou Shalt Not Metagame.

I shouldn't need to tell you this. You should know it already. If you're just trolling, then I apologize to everyone for wasting so much space on stating the obvious, but it's important that new players not come away with the wrong idea.

I think your definitions are reasonable, but the bolded statement, put in such an absolutist and quasi-moral way is just silly on its face. Sometimes RL and its associated player knowledge just has to intrude to make gaming feasible, not to mention fun. Accommodating those necessary or desirable breaks in RP gracefully is, IMO, part of being a good DM. And you are right - new players should not come away with the wrong idea - that meta-gaming is a great moral issue.

I shouldn't need to tell you this. You should know it already.

 

[Prism]

In the the two 5E games I gmed and in the one I played in, the entire party pooled their treasure to get the main fighter into plate armour at level 4, seeing the value in having a heavily armoured tank.

Fair enough. In all the games I have played so far the earliest I have seen full plate is level 6 when we took it off an opponent, but my character didn't get it. The earliest one of my characters has been able get some is level 7. Looking at the DMG treasure tables and the official modules I doubt the party could easily collect 1500gp much before level 5 even as a group.

 

[Mageman]

Instead of banning it, insert a few anti-magic zones that dispel the eye, or add in some creatures that can dispel (and when they do, it winks out of existence and the caster cannot figure out what happened without a difficult arcana check). Alternatively, have the eye malfunction without the caster being aware and have it scout areas that aren't real. Another option is to use lots of illusory terrain in your dungeon or add in teleporters that ping the first party member that enters all over (thereby doing the same to the eye) unless they are able to locate something to deactivate it (enough pinging that it could theoretically make the caster sick to their stomach, forcing them to roll concentration and very likely dropping the spell). Lots of different options, you just have to get creative.

This seems like way to much work for a DM. He should just talk to his players and make them play the way he wants them too.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[Corpsetaker]

Highly unlikely. ;P It does.
Like I said, I'm sorry if you find it succinct to the point of being dismissive, but, IMHO, it's all that needs to be said.

You can find the 5e rules-as-written to be imbalanced, broken to the point of being 'problematic' all you want, just as you can find them an inadequate blueprint for world peace or an ineffective cancer treatment. They're equally true observations. They're just not terribly relevant to DMs using 5e as a starting point to run enjoyable games.

You sound rather more defensive than dismissive. I mean you make a bold statement and then when asked to explain you say you are under no obligation. That would be like someone saying "Well D&D sucks" and then someone asks you to explain why it sucks and your only explanation is you are under no obligation to say. Well that may be true but your credibility tends to go out the window.

Your second point is just flat out wrong pure and simple. Are you sure you are responding to the right thread?

 

[Corwin]

I mean you make a bold statement and then when asked to explain you say you are under no obligation.

Ow! My eyes! Me eyes! The irony! It burns!

 

[Tony Vargas]

That would be like someone saying "Well D&D sucks" and then someone asks you to explain why it sucks and your only explanation is you are under no obligation to say. Well that may be true but your credibility tends to go out the window.

Lookee, there's some irony.

(oops, ninja'd by Corwin)

Your second point is just flat out wrong pure and simple.

Care to offer an explanation?

 

[Chaosmancer]

I suppose for me, broken in regards to underpowered or unfun is soemthing I can find pretty easily.

Warlock casting has been a complaint of my group (no new slots until 10 or 11)

Sorcerers feeling underpowered compared to wizards

Ranger spellcasting (I changed them to preparing spells instead of a static list)


In regards to overpowered... I can't think of anything I've had too much trouble with. My group is not optimizers though, so a lot of the things I see complained about either don't hit the table or don't seem to get used like you guys talk about them sometimes.